How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Mosque near WTC site   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Mosque near WTC site

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


0 posted 05-15-2010 07:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Plans are moving forward to build a Muslim community centre, possibly including a Mosque, a couple of blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. Do you think itís a good idea or a bad idea?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/plan-build-mosque-near-ground-zero-riles-families-victims/
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


1 posted 05-15-2010 08:48 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Though the question of whether religious violence is central to the teaching of the Koran is still worth asking, I think blaming all Muslims for 911 is the wrong way to go.  Professing Christians have been violent at times, but I sure wouldn't want all Christian communities to be judged by those regrettable moments.  


Still, whether or not this is a good idea, I don't know.  It might be a combination of bad ideas ... 1) The offenders pushing for something that would naturally be taken like salt in a fresh would, and 2)  The offended failing to make distinction between religious extremism and those Muslims who condemn such violence.  But sadly concessions on either side just doesn't seem likely.


Stephen
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


2 posted 05-15-2010 09:02 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

There are a few things that come into play, here...
American citizens have freedoms according to Natural Law (and backed up by the Constitution) that permit them the right to free and peaceful assembly.
They are also guaranteed the right to worhip, or not, according to their desires, and to speak as they wish in regards to their religion.
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Under the law of Nature, all men are born free, everyone comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will."
He also wrote, "The G-d who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time."

By using those words, then it seems that under the Natural law, the government is unable to remove those freedoms by any manner outside of convicting them through the legal system built in to punish those who have gone awry of the American legal system.
As those who wish to establish a place wherein they are able to peacefully assemble, worship their deity as they so choose, and speak as they feel in their heart are American citizens, and afforded the absolute rights and freedoms of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they should not be hampered in any way from doing so.
I know this is not going to be a popular thought, and that many are going to wish to say negative things about it. To them, I say: "Please do. I welcome any peaceful discussion, because you also have the same rights under both Natural law and the aforementioned documents."

Isn't it funny that the ones who are screaming the loudest that they be allowed to say what they want, and worship their deity in any manner they choose, and the right to go and do as they plkease, are the very ones who are screaming the loudest that these American citizens not be afforded the same rights?

For the record:
Yes, they should be allowed to establish their community center/mosqu/school/etc. wherever they please. At its core, Islam is a peaceful religion, just as Christianity and Judisam are at theirs. It is only when people take a sideways, and slanted view that these become what we each fear of each other.
Until they can be proven guilty of sedition, and planning violent acts upon the people of the Uniuted States, they are presumed to be innocent of such charges.

*oh, for all my conservative friends... no, I did not bump my head.
for all my liberal friends... no, I did not finally see the light.
I simply read the Constitution.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


3 posted 05-16-2010 02:34 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Ringo / Stephen

Very astute and well-reasoned answers, thanks for taking the time to reply.

One question springs to mind though, apart from the strict legalities, do you think itís morally correct to allow the building to continue?

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


4 posted 05-16-2010 04:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Yes, for exactly the reasons that Ringo laid out.  The Constitution sets a standard that I believe is a good standard and a moral standard about these things.  It suggests that this is the way things ought to be run here.  These are the ways a good man ought to act and the ways that he ought to act with his religion or religious standards in a community of plural religious standards and ethics for all of them to get along with reasonable amity.  It way be an aging standard by this point, designed for the enlightenment and for an age of reason when this is more of and Age of Inflammation, but I have grown insanely attached to it for what may prove to be merely nationalistic reasons.

     I have noticed that, internationally, there are a fair number of people who seem to feel the same way.  There is something about the ideas of plurality and amity set out here that leaves folks curious and impressed at the same time as they may be furious at the way we deal with our foreign policy on occasion.  I know I'm stubbornly loyal to those ideas.  And I think they are moral ideas, and that they do supply moral guidance.

     This is one of the reasons why I get so upset about civil rights and human rights in the domestic laws here and in foreign policy abroad.  To me it's part of politics.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


5 posted 05-16-2010 10:07 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm not comfortable with their planned grand opening date....September 11, 2011, the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Why would they choose to have that be the date of their grand opening celebration?
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


6 posted 05-16-2010 10:12 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

As a matter of fact, I still believe it is proper and permissible to allow them to do so.
As I said in my previous answer, the Islamic faith, at it's core, is a peacefull and (to a point) forgiving religion. People of the Muslim faith are just that... people. They are no more violent than the average Christian/Jew/Athiest would be.

It is true that there are certain sects of every religion that believe in violence and such... That is not the entire group.

To punish a group of Americans for the actions of a very select few who were NOT Americans is morally reprehensible. There are a great many people (not just the 9/12 organizations) who are screaming that the current administration is taking away our rights as American Citizens. There are others making the same claims against the previous administration. Why, then, would we be morraly able to do the same thing to these Americans that we are screaming someone else is or has done to us?

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


7 posted 05-16-2010 11:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Choosing that site in conjunction with that particular date for the grand opening makes me uncomfortable, Ringo. Of course they have the right, but does that make it right? To me it seems a bit insensitive on their part to the trauma suffered that day. Why not move the date back a week or two?

I read once that in the Islamic world dates and anniversaries of dates are extremely significant in making a statement. I could be wrong, but this feels to me like some sort of statement is being made.

I'd also have to know more about the financial backers of the project. Are they  Sharia Law advocates? There's nothing peaceful, respectful of women's rights, or tolerant of other's beliefs under that system, that I've read. Weren't the prepetrators of 9/11 engaged in Sharia Law Jihad against us?

So I'd have to know more about this new mosque's religious philosophy before I could condone it.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


8 posted 05-17-2010 12:13 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

My first thought is that there might be hate and violence directed at a mosque in that kind of area.  It seems like an unnecessary risk to put it into.  But then again, maybe that is a way to help over come such things: they may be in more risk being among people that have much displaced anger and misconceptions, but at the same time, that may give them the opportunity to prove and show them better and hopefully replace the displaced hostility with respect and tolerance in the long run.

  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


9 posted 05-17-2010 01:43 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Why would they choose to have that be the date of their grand opening celebration?


I think it has something to do with the building being a memorial to the victims of the attack Denise.

.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


10 posted 05-17-2010 02:05 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Aside from legality, which as Ringo pointed out, upholds this, the "moral" question rests upon answers to some pertinent questions...

A significant portion of Islamic practice and belief passively condones violence as a means to advance the will of Allah.  (I myself believe that this Jihadist interpretation is most natural to the Koranic text itself, but that's another discussion I suppose, since adherents may also disregard doctrines central to their religious texts)  Is this particular Mosque, or Islamic community opposed to religious violence or not?  Do they officially condemn what happened at 911?  Would such a condemnation be consistent with their dogma and teaching?  

Grinch says the choice of the date 9-11 is because of a respectful commemoration of victims.  I would certainly like to believe that.  What is the evidence for it?


Stephen  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


11 posted 05-17-2010 03:04 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Grinch says the choice of the date 9-11 is because of a respectful commemoration of victims.  I would certainly like to believe that.  What is the evidence for it?


It was more a presumption than a statement of fact Stephen. The proximity to the WTC site and the timing of the opening along with the fact that a couple of hundred American Muslims were killed in the attack lends itself to such a presumption.

According to Muslim friends Iíve spoken to Islam has the same strong urge to memorialise their loved ones who have been taken from them as the next guy. Building a Mosque as a memorial to their dead under such circumstances is the equivalent of a Christian building a Church as a memorial to the Christians who died, or the Jewish Community building a Synagogue.

It seems a reasonable assumption, donít you think?

.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (05-17-2010 07:07 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


12 posted 05-17-2010 11:01 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch,

Of course its a reasonable assumption, just as reasonable as surmising more negative or fanatical motives for doing such a thing.  Reason I'm not questioning.  Facts I am.  I'm only saying that the answer to your question about the morality of it, really depends upon such facts.  Does the Islamic organization behind this controversial move really condemn religious violence?  Knowing very little about it at this point, I'm not assuming one way or the other.  


Stephen
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


13 posted 05-18-2010 01:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Does the Islamic organization behind this controversial move really condemn religious violence?  Knowing very little about it at this point, I'm not assuming one way or the other.


I doubt that they are going to tell you if their intentions are malicious Stephen, you have to decide whether you trust them or you donít by either presuming good intentions or bad. Under such circumstances isnít claiming agnosticism on the subject the equivalent of admitting disbelief and mistrust.

Wouldnít it be wise to oppose the Mosque if you donít trust the people who are in favour of building it? Taking it even further, should those people even be allowed to roam free in your country if you canít trust them?

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


14 posted 05-18-2010 07:55 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Okay, Stephanos.  So what are the facts you have about these particular people that would lead us to believe that they mean more harm than, say, a group of Christians at the same spot?  We all know that there are Jihadi Moslems.  We should all know that there are millennialist Christians.  We all know that Jihadi Muslims could be looking to start a war of some sort.  We should be aware that there are some Millennialist Christians who would be thrilled to help the end times show up.

     What evidence do you have that this Mosque is actively that particular sort of mosque as opposed to any new Christian church in the area being an actively Millennialist Church which is seeking to bring about the end times?  Is one more dangerous than the other?

     And is the danger such that Americans need to start putting limitations on freedom of religion?

     Perhaps we ought to outlaw all public worship or houses of worship and throw a huge tax on them all, so we would be free of this terrible threat?  Maybe we should only close down churches that don't agree with your particular brand of Christianity?  What do we do?

     Religion, I would suggest to you, is inherently a destabilizing social force, and the only way to allow it to function in a stabilizing way is to allow it free expression without allowing it entrance into the government.  That is what I'd proposed as my thesis, the constitutional one, freedom of worship, separation of church and state.

     Let them have the Mosque, and bless them.  Build a church next door if you want.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


15 posted 05-19-2010 12:21 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
I doubt that they are going to tell you if their intentions are malicious Stephen

Doubtless that is true, Grinch.  I am only saying that the moral question is unanswerable without more information.  I just heard a radio program on NPR today "Fresh Air" about a Muslim Cleric (a U.S. citizen) of whom it was discovered that he consorts with terrorists and has been involved in training them for U.S. attacks.  If its on NPR, and not just from a politically conservative pundit, I think its worthy of consideration.
  
http://search1.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120287913

quote:
you have to decide whether you trust them or you donít by either presuming good intentions or bad.


I do?  hmmm.  I always thought that suspension of judgment was a live option ... especially for someone who doesn't know much about the Islamic group in question, nor lives in that local community, nor has any real voice about the matter one way or another as regarding plans or prohibitions ... like yourself.

quote:
isnít claiming agnosticism on the subject the equivalent of admitting disbelief and mistrust.


disbelief in what, whom?  

As to mistrust ... I would try and follow the "harmless as doves wise as serpents" approach.  This certainly has its difficulties, in that it is neither an open-arms approach without conditions, nor a hateful vengeful stance that would admit no possibility of exceptions to popular demonizing.  The just path is the hardest to hold, I'm sure.


quote:
Wouldnít it be wise to oppose the Mosque if you donít trust the people who are in favour of building it?


Wisdom would never make a rash judgment, that much I know.

Not knowing the character of a person, or a group, and being slow to answer your moral question on a forum, is quite different than "not trusting".  It seems you are trying to advance me to a position that I don't currently hold.

quote:
Taking it even further, should those people even be allowed to roam free in your country if you canít trust them?


don't take me further when you've already taken me too far.  

It's not my job or yours to determine what makes one a U.S. citizen.  Anyway, I thought you were now asking the moral question concerning the mosque, not the legal one.


Bob:
quote:
So what are the facts you have about these particular people that would lead us to believe that they mean more harm than, say, a group of Christians at the same spot?


Nothing in particular Bob, except the fact that I know Jihadism to be a much more commonly held belief within Islam, than Christian Zealotism is within Christianity.  And By the latter, I am not referring to those who wish to "advance the end times" or believe in a millennial reign of Christ, but rather those who would actually take action by taking the lives of others.

Add to that the fact that there was this kind of blood spilling on the very spot where the mosque in question is going, by Muslim extremists.  It's hard not to be guarded of a healing wound site.

Again, I am not one to say that it should be forbidden.  I was answering Grinch's question of whether it was right or wrong.  And I only said as much as "that depends".

quote:
What evidence do you have that this Mosque is actively that particular sort of mosque as opposed to any new Christian church in the area being an actively Millennialist Church which is seeking to bring about the end times?  Is one more dangerous than the other?


Firstly, I already said unequivocally that I didn't have evidence either way.

Secondly, The Dispensationalist Christians I think you are referring to are not dangerous at all ... Unless you'd like to cite some examples of mass violence that would support your lumping together of only superficially-similar patterns of belief.

Jihadism says that Sharia Law is brought about by force.  Dispensationalism says that God's rule in the earth is brought about by God himself and a much more passive inauguration by the Church (prayer and good deeds), though there are many who feel that the U.S. should support the Israeli state, they have not participated in anti-Islamic aggression or anything like "911".  Having been a part of several "dispensational" evangelical churches, (though I am critical of a good bit of dispensational theology myself) I can vouch that at its simplistic and annoying worst, it is not actually comparable to Islamic Jihadism.  Not even close.  Not even close to close to close.


quote:
And is the danger such that Americans need to start putting limitations on freedom of religion?


Did I say they should?  Only, I would say, if religion equates itself with being violent to the U.S. government or U.S. citizenry, by its words or actions.  


quote:
Perhaps we ought to outlaw all public worship or houses of worship and throw a huge tax on them all, so we would be free of this terrible threat?  Maybe we should only close down churches that don't agree with your particular brand of Christianity?  What do we do?


gimme a break Bob.  Did I come anywhere a lightyear close to suggesting religion should be outawed for disagreements?  The question of whether someone is aligned with terrorist acts transcends religion in this thread ... simply because it could have been any group of common interest, political, religious, or otherwise.  The religion question here is ancillary/ secondary to this particular discussion.  Couldn't we just as easily have been discussing whether a Nationalist-Socialist convention center should be erected in Oklahoma City?  


quote:
Religion, I would suggest to you, is inherently a destabilizing social force


Actually Bob, it's only certain kinds of religion that destabilize society.  If religion was so destabilizing, shouldn't a social darwinism of some kind have eliminated it by now?  (wink)  Taking a lump-all-together kind of view like this, in the negative, has not been typically your way.  I myself don't think its reasonable given the historical positive testimony surrounding good religious community, and the value of a unifying story.  You should see such value since your own religion, theistic or otherwise, provides you a vision of society which functions under a vision of Americanized Pluralism, from which to base your own attitudes toward others ... which I notice is quite respectful.  


quote:
and the only way to allow it to function in a stabilizing way is to allow it free expression without allowing it entrance into the government.  That is what I'd proposed as my thesis, the constitutional one, freedom of worship, separation of church and state.


Just wondering why your (non-theistic) religion is the political philosophy of the state, while the others are openly limited in their influence of policy?  

Remember that the political philosophy of this nation has always a priori assumed something higher than the state, upon which human rights and responsibilities are based, lest the state become absolute, corrupted, and tyrannical.  Hence, "separation of church and state" (a phrase, which interestingly cannot be found in the constitution, but was in a letter of Thomas Jefferson to a Church) can hardly be as simplistic as you state it here.

quote:
Let them have the Mosque, and bless them.  Build a church next door if you want.


But surely if either group is stockpiling weapons, consorting with terrorists, training americans to be terrorists, or teaching that violence is a religious duty, you would think that we should treat them according to the same rules that apply to all?  

I'm stating nothing outside of that, other than my personal belief that condoning or even committing violence is a more natural interpretation of the text of the Koran, than of other religious texts, particularly the New Testament.  And that we have had a recent history of Jihad Terror on the very spot in question ... such would, by any measurement of prudence, demand looking at closely.  Though charity and hope would ask that we not resort to hatred, fear, or prohibition automatically.    


Stephen  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


16 posted 05-19-2010 02:16 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Makes considerable sense to me, Stephen.  As usual.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


17 posted 05-19-2010 08:11 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Bob,

Thanks, but, such a curt reply from you frankly scares me.  



Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


18 posted 05-19-2010 08:21 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

quote:
I just heard a radio program on NPR today "Fresh Air" about a Muslim Cleric (a U.S. citizen) of whom it was discovered that he consorts with terrorists and has been involved in training them for U.S. attacks.

Is it one of the clerics associated with this particular building/mosque/community-education center? This is smoke and mirrors, and blaming a group of people on the actions of another.
The Westboro Baptist Church (the ones protesting the military funerals) cannot be held up as the standard for all Christian groups/churches/religions; Chabad Lubavitch cannot be said to speak for all of the Jewish faith; not every Catholic priest was abusing children; not every military member was committing atrocities in Veitnam akin to the My Lai incident...
Yes, it is true that there are American Muslim clerics that are supporting the radical islmaic groups in other parts of the Middle East; however, this is nothing to do with the issue at hand. Has anyone ever said that the people associate with this particular building in NYC are doing so? If not, then what is the beef with them having their religious freedoms, and the freedom to worship where they would like?

quote:
Add to that the fact that there was this kind of blood spilling on the very spot where the mosque in question is going, by Muslim extremists.  It's hard not to be guarded of a healing wound site

Would you be as guarded if the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wanted to give money towards a monument at Columbine High School, even though their sons did the damage? I can understand that some people would distrust the motives of every member of a particular religion that caused the damage, and yet, that is the essence of a terrorist victory: We distrust each other and spend our lives mistrusting people and not looking for the real cause of distruction.

quote:
condoning or even committing violence is a more natural interpretation of the text of the Koran, than of other religious texts

Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath: spare him not, nor covet any thing that is his: but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass  1 Samuel 15:3

But of the cities of these peoples, that Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth
Deuteronomy 20:16

All the spoil of these cities and the cattle, the sons of Israel took as their plunder; but they struck every man with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them.
Joshua 11:14

Have you allowed all the women to live?...Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man... The Lord said to Moses, ďYou and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community.
Numbers 31:15, 17-18, 25-27

It is very easy to go quote for quote, Mohammed vs. G-d; however, it is not what is written, rather what is in ech person's heart... and until someone can produce proof that the people in this particular instance (the 9/11 building) are of an evil heart, then we are morally and legally bound to allow them to worship where, when, and how they please.

Stephan- I know this post might seem to twist your words, and I assure you that I am not doing so to impugn your nature or your thoughts... it is simply a way to get the point across to those who might actually be thinking in the sentences you put forth.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


19 posted 05-19-2010 09:39 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ringo:
quote:
Is it one of the clerics associated with this particular building/mosque/community-education center? This is smoke and mirrors, and blaming a group of people on the actions of another.


It's nowhere close to blaming a group of people on the actions of another.  It is merely the recognition of the fact that a Jihadist interpretation of the Koran is natural enough and common enough to look out for, especially when it involves a "ground zero" of sorts.  

quote:
Yes, it is true that there are American Muslim clerics that are supporting the radical islmaic groups in other parts of the Middle East; however, this is nothing to do with the issue at hand. Has anyone ever said that the people associate with this particular building in NYC are doing so? If not, then what is the beef with them having their religious freedoms, and the freedom to worship where they would like?



I'm not advocating taking away their freedoms.  I am advocating knowing whether they intend to take away ours.  The location and date involved is enough to warrant looking into the character of the group in question.  And that is not my job either, though the necessity of doing so within proper bounds (not unproblematic, I'm aware) seems obvious enough to me.


quote:
Would you be as guarded if the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wanted to give money towards a monument at Columbine High School, even though their sons did the damage?


That's altogether different.  A mosque is a place of religious instruction and inculcation.  Why would anyone have a problem with Muslims giving money toward the World Trade Center, victims of the catastrophe, or any other cause?  I certainly wouldn't.  

quote:
I can understand that some people would distrust the motives of every member of a particular religion that caused the damage, and yet, that is the essence of a terrorist victory: We distrust each other and spend our lives mistrusting people and not looking for the real cause of distruction.


I'm not advocating hatred or prohibition.  I am saying that knowing the character and nature of the religious group in question is necessary to answering the inquiry of this thread.

BTW, what do you think the "real cause of destruction" is?


quote:
Stephan- I know this post might seem to twist your words, and I assure you that I am not doing so to impugn your nature or your thoughts... it is simply a way to get the point across to those who might actually be thinking in the sentences you put forth.


A word about the salient Old Testament texts you brought up:  The eye for an eye and tooth for tooth concept of the Jews was actually a lessening of punishment typical to the world of the Ancient Near East.  Likewise, the Hebrew approach to war, though terrible to contemporary American Minds, was a mitigation of typical practices ... and mild by comparison.  Does history uniquely remember the Jews as a bellicose or warlike people?  

Secondly, the New Testament tells us that the Old Testament is characteristically centered upon a kind of unrelenting justice/punishment paradigm ... revealing God as a punisher of sin and unrighteousness.  Dispensationally, the New Testament is a revelation of Grace and Mercy, hence the teaching of Jesus about praying for and blessing one's enemies.  So in comparing Christianity to Islam, regarding its approach to violence, it seems that a consideration of what changes in attitude and action the New Testament prescribes shouldn't be left out.

Lastly, If actual Christian groups in the U.S. were known for bloodshed (apart from the isolated Westboro group who protests funerals with hateful speech ... a deplorable practice, yet still considerably different from something like 911) then I would be asking the same questions about a "Christian" group too, especially if their new church and school happened to be going up next to a national VA cemetery.

The approach people have toward persons and groups are always determined (at least partly) by their actions ... whether Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Nationalist Socialist, _________ <--- insert your ideology here.  

If an Evangelical church had been involved in the destruction of a particular abortion clinic, with resulting fatalities, and a few years later my own Evangelical church wanted to build a church right next door to the new clinic, I would hardly be surprised at objections and concerns.  I don't think I would even be opposed to the powers that be wanting to take a look into what we are really about.  Those who claim godliness should have nothing to hide.  Whether you agree with this or not, you can at least understand the concern.  To paint such a concern as religious intolerance would be mistaken, since the religiosity of the group is secondary.  The main thing is, at least superficially, the group in question shares an ideology similar to the group that bombed the clinic ... so questioning their motives is valid.  So you see, I have no double standard here.  What's good for goose is good for the gander.  

This, like the abortion clinic scenario I painted above, is a unique situation, quite different from someone troubling a Mosque in Atlanta Georgia, for something that happened in New York.


Thanks for the engaging replies Ringo.


Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


20 posted 05-19-2010 12:48 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

May not many manners of Muslim be going to the mosque (including some that may be extreme in some beliefs)?   How can we judge it as only one or the other?   The majority are not extremists, but that doesn't mean there may not still be a few that are extremists in their beliefs.  Even among people with extreme beliefs though, those that act out in violence are a minority.  I know a few people that have somewhat extreme beliefs about certain things, bordering on things about gender, race, political issues, etc, and yet at the same time these people are also some of the friendliest people I know as far as the way they treat others in every day life.   Extremism in belief is not always extremism in practice/action even though it may be a danger of it.   Don't be so quick to exclude people based on extreme beliefs.   Often they are the ones that need more attention and affection, not to be shoved away out of the light of a more healthy community into a dark corner where their extremism may turn into something far more dangerous than religious beliefs. Normally and in everyday activities none of these may look very different from the average believer.  And as long as everyone, those with mild beliefs, those with harsh beliefs, are not harming anyone and are able to get along, how should we deny either a similar respect and tolerance?
 
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


21 posted 05-19-2010 05:50 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
May not many manners of Muslim be going to the mosque (including some that may be extreme in some beliefs)?   How can we judge it as only one or the other?
  

We can't.  But that's not the point I'm making, nor my intent.  Typically, the leadership sets the tone for any group.  Also, the leadership usually has power and organizational resources that would make the difference between radical belief and radical belief that issues in action.

That's why in such a controversial case, as building a mosque at ground zero, I think it would be enlightening to know about the leaders ... whether they actually oppose the actions of 911, or whether they are supporters of such means and actions.


Even if you don't think this should affect any official policy, surely you can see that it is a valid and (should be) anticipated question on all sides.  It was, after all, a much more bloody and messy affair than a game of Jenga.  


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-19-2010 09:00 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


22 posted 05-20-2010 02:19 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here is an excerpt from an email that I received today about this issue:

Less than nine years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history, an imam who blames America for the 9/11 attack wants to construct a 13 story mosque and Islamic center 600 feet from ďGround Zero.Ē

Whatís more, he wants to unveil it to the world on September 11, 2011óthe ten year anniversary of that horrific jihadist attack.

9/11 survivors and their families are in disbelief at the insensitivity being expressed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his supporters who want this mosque at ground zero.

They are astonished that an imam who endorses sharia law, the same law system that motivated the jihadists to blow up the World Trade Center, would be so brazen as to erect a mosque at ground zero.


And here is a link to their site:
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/home/5-home/99-home

The founder of this group, Act! For America, is someone who lived under attacks by Islamic extremists in Lebanon, Brigitte Gabriel.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


23 posted 05-20-2010 02:32 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
...who endorses sharia law...



Well, do they expect him not to be a Muslim then?  


"Sharia (..."way" or "path") refers to the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they have differences between themselves as to exactly what it entails.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia]


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 05-20-2010 05:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Radical muslims will see it as an incredible sign of weakness on our part to allow it.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Mosque near WTC site   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors